Skip to main content

About your Search

20121006
20121014
STATION
CSPAN 16
CNN 12
CNNW 12
MSNBC 12
MSNBCW 12
CSPAN2 9
CNBC 2
KNTV (NBC) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 86
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 86 (some duplicates have been removed)
like this. he would maintain our current level of defense spending over the next eight years. he would spend way more than a cold war-style drawdown. way more than the sequester, but he would treat the budget as the new normal with slight increases over time. that's the obama plan for the biggest single thing on which we spend discretionary money. mr. obama's opponents, on the other hand, the math ticket, the hard-nosed practical numbers guys, their plan for defense spending looks like this. ta da! that's what mitt romney is proposing for military spending. an otherwise enormous amount of money. this is what they are planning on doing. the highest level of military spending since the korean war. because, you know, forget your hope and change. what the country needs is math, math, math. how does the ticket plan to balance this giant plus sign contained in their plan? this massive increase in government spending. where does the minus come from if they want to increase spending by that much? this was the scene today in a place called van meter, iowa. just outside des moines. this is what
defense cuts that are coming up this january. these are things he has mentioned before, so this speech seemed to be an opportunity to make that argument a little more forcefully and and a place like virginia where it is a major battleground this year. the obama campaign is responding with a tv ad of their own in virginia, focusing on governor romney's foreign trip abroad, saying this was a reckless tripped and using a lot of footage from that. less than a month away from election day, we have a turn back toward foreign policy. it is the mirror image of what happened in 2008 when foreign policy had the election but once the financial collapse happened, suddenly everything turned to the economic issues and now you're seeing the other way around. host: thank you for joining us. appreciate it. >> this is where mr. romney will give his speech this morning. this is the virginia military institute in lexington, virginia. you are looking at the hall of valor. now romney is set to give his foreign policy speech at of the debate on foreign policy october 26 in florida. we will have live coverage
in iraq and afghanistan as if it were defense spending. they did it as an emergency so this is just the base defense budget. this just shows how the base defense budget went up after 9/11, not including that emergency spending on iraq and afghanistan. now here's the amazing thing. watch this. so this is where our spending is now. that's what the blue line means. if we were to let our spending drop like we did after the end of the cold war, our spending would look like this. now you know the sequester that you've been hearing about with the draconian defense cuts, this is what our spending on the military would be like with the sequester. that's the purple line there. president obama's plan, what the pentagon and president obama have agreed should happen and what their plan is if president obama gets a second term is this line. military spending to have go like that. the third one there in the stack. essentially setting the spending levels we have got now as a new normal, even though he keeps spending going slightly up. people say there's no difference between the candidates. there's
military in tunisia as a major issue. in libya there was no ministry of defense under gadhafi, and we don't even have a minister of defense in the newly-reformed, so curbing military power in the narrow sense of an army isn't the main issue in tunisia either, and i actually think -- excuse me, libya -- and i actually think that probably, you know, 95% of the 250,000 or so libyans walking around with weapons are trying to keep the peace, not make mischief. .. and the security forces and in defense of the regime that is where the action is, not in the military. you're the geopolitics guy. >> i thought the worst-case scenario for the algerian military is instability in northern mali. and you know what is going on in the eastern front with libya. i know that some troops had to be redeployed in the eastern front because of the, the traffic of armaments and drugs and other issues. this is the worst case so. >> i just want to take the opportunity to answer a question that hasn't been asked. but, this is something that i was thinking about. it's slightly related to your question but it's somethin
over 315,000 afghan military personnel. it is their responsibility to step up to their defense of their nation. [applause] we went for al qaeda. we went for some of the late in. we accomplished that goal. we went for osama bin laden. we accomplished that goal. and now it is time. congressman ryan made very clear that governor romney has a very different view. although he says that he thinks we should get out in 2014, although he says that that makes sense, he says we should never have announced that and i might add, had not, the afghans would never step up, which should never have announced that and, when asked to guarantee you will get out, he says it depends. no, i'm serious. you heard it. it depends on the situation on the ground. it depends. well it depends on nothing other than the date as far as we're concerned. it is time for the afghans to take care of their own responsibilities. [applause] but like almost everything, it depends. it depends on which day you asking the question. [laughter] it depends. it depends on the circumstances. but it was not just on foreign policy
cut for wealthiest americans. and he couldn't do it. congressman ryan when pressed about his defense spending proposal flat-out lied about it. the fact they proposed a $2 trillion increase in defense spending beyond the level the pentagon asked for which would explode the deficit. and he wouldn't commit to the 2014 timetable to bring our troops home from afghanistan. and so i think time and time again the vice president laid out the choice for the middle class in this election and was very effective in doing so. jon: time and time again the vice president interrupted, interjected, laughed, guf fawed, that kind of thing. was that appropriate first of all? was it intentional? >> well, republicans like to praise happy warriors. that is what we saw from the vice president last night. he caught out the brazen attempt by the romney-ryan campaign to try to rewrite their kick the -- ticket and their positions in the final 30 days of the race. suddenly they don't know anything about the $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest they proposed. suddenly they talk like they cover people with preexi
. also renowned criminal defense attorney, mark geragos. you say jerry sandusky is opening the wound for the victims by releasing this statement. >> yes, anderson, i believe he is. what's happening is that sandusky is taking every opportunity to continue to torment these victims. he's now accusing them, in fact, made a direct reference to victim one by saying he started everything. there is no conspiracy here. there is no making these accusations for any reason other than to put mr. sandusky behind bars for the rest his life because of th heinous acts that he perpetrated on these victims. >> mark, what about this? he is alleging this basically huge conspiracy against him by just about everybody, putting out a statement like this the night before the sentencing hearing, is that something you would ever advise a client to do? >> no. the last thing you are going to want to do is advise a client i want you to go in there, you're better off just saying nothing. however, as a practical matter, he's going to get a life sentence, whether it's a number of years, whether it's consecutive, what
of the speech yesterday from governor romney where he talked about defense cuts and his proposals, paul ryan voted for the sequester and cuts, how does paul ryan defend his original budget and medicare proposals in contrast to what governor romney is now proposing? >> well, what matters now is, what is governor romney's plan going forward and paul ryan has signed up for the romney plan. specifically with respect to the sequester, governor romney is opposed to it. in fact, when that was decided last summer governor romney issued a statement specifically mentions the prospect of some devastating cuts to our national defense budget should sequestration become necessary. so the governor has made it a priority to reverse the obama defense cuts. it's not just the $500 billion that will happen as a result of sequestratio sequestration, another $500 billion in the works. the president's defense secretary has said the combination of the obama defense cuts with sequestration will be devastating to our military. it will further weaken our standings in the world and embolden our adversaries. >> what abo
am an honorably discharged united states marine. i served in desert storm. i am a criminal defense attorney for 19 years. i started off my law firm in 2007 and i employ 11 full-time people at my firm. i know what it is like to run a small business. we have strayed far from the principles of limited government. our government taxes and spends out of control and our civil liberties are constantly under attack. we can fix it, but we need to get government back into its cagae. >> our final opening statement is from jeff flake. >> good to be here. two days ago, cheryl and i received a wonderful phone call from my son syan and forming as we are grandparents. aidan was born into a wonderful family, but he was born into $50,000 of debt. his share of the federal debt we all hold. that is why the stakes in this election are so high. we have to have somebody who understands fiscal discipline. that has been my record in the house of representatives, where i fought my own leadership on issues like earmarks. they punish me for it, but i kept at it and we do not have earmarks any more. that is th
of defense and the national security council. prior to becoming chairman, he served briefly as the army's 37th chief of staff. general dempsey is a bit of an unexpected appointment. he had just been sworn in as the army chief of staff a couple of months prior, but when the nomination process for another candidate stalled, general dempsey was called to serve a grateful nation, and he has done so with distinction. since taking the chairman's job a year ago, the 37-year army veteran has made headlines by dealing with the infamous quran-burning pastor by calling him up and asking him to withdraw his support for the anti-muslim video that sparked protests across the middle east. he expressed disappointment over the navy seal who published an unauthorized account of the killing of osama bin laden. he said an israeli attack on iran would clearly delay but probably not destroy iran's nuclear program. he has stressed the need to retool the military for a postwar world with smaller pentagon budgets, and most recently he has spoken about the need to turn up the volume on ways to help war veterans reint
of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. we need to be straight with the american people. >> time for a new question but the same topic. this time to you, senator edwards. you and senator kerry have said the war in iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. does that mean if you had been president and vice president that saddam hussein would still be in power. >> here's what it means. it means that saddam hussein needed to be confronted. john kerry and i have consistently said that. that's why we voted for the resolution. but it also means it needed to be done the right way. and doing it the right way meant that we were prepared -- we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction, that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are al qaeda, osama bin laden, the people who attacked us on september 11. now remember, we went into afghanistan, which, by the way, was the right thing to do. that wases the right decision. our military performed terrifically there. but we had osama bin laden corne
of defense in a coordinated effort, in reconnaissance. but i don't believe that we are going to turn the department of defense into a police organization. we are using our military assets in a prudent way to deal with interdiction, and we've made some success in this area. seventy tons of cocaine have been stopped. but, you know, when you look at the drug problem and it is a tremendous problem, and there are no easy solutions to it it's a complicated problem, and it's heading up the effort to try to create a drug-free america, which is a challenge and a goal of all of us. not only will we utilize national defense and the department of defense, but we've got to get on the demand side of the ledger; we've got to get to education. and education ought to begin at home, and it ought to be reinforced in our schools. and there's another thing that will be more important than the premise of this question on a hypothetical of using troops. we will use the military assets, we will use military assets but we need to focus on another part of this problem, and that problem is law enforcement. and
help. the cia, the nsa, the department of defense, they know it's at the border sometimes come and we don't. so, the businesses have to work together in this to protect the american public so that we can stop cybercrime. but it's a big deal and it is going to get worse. computers and ten years would be faster and the calculations would get through quicker to meet that in every way, shape and form. the banks are pretty good at this. they wouldn't do this along time and all of the rules and regulations, but how many of you worry about that? it's the ciders to becoming over the internet. everything we do we know more about some of that stuff and you think but think of the person that knows your company from inside. that's what we are going to get. so. >> thank you for that reassuring point. there is a young lady in the second to the last row. >> how do you protect yourself from any one individual getting access. >> daniel douglas from the washington post. many of the rules under dodd-frank have to be written, so i'm wondering how much of an impact is the current regulatory environment ha
to eliminate those that aren't working. i know a lot of them that aren't working. one of them is in defense spending, because i've taken on some of the defense contractors. i saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion in a deal for an air force tanker that was done in a corrupt fashion. i believe that we have to eliminate the earmarks. and sometimes those projects, not the overhead projector that senator obama asked for, but some of them that are really good projects, will have to be eliminated as well. and they'll have to undergo the same scrutiny that all projects should in competition with others. so we're going to have to tell the american people that spending is going to have to be cut in america. and i recommend a spending freeze that, except for defense, veterans affairs, and some other vital programs, we'll just have to have across-the-board freeze. and some of those programs may not grow as much as we would like for them to, but we can establish priorities with full transparency, with full knowledge of the american people, and full consultation, not done behind closed doors and shoving earma
year, the department of defense has been working closely with other agencies to understand where are the lines of responsibility when it comes to cyber defense? where do we draw those lines? how do those responsibilities get executed? as part of that effort, the department is now finalizing the most comprehensive change to our rules of engagement in cyberspace in seven years. the new rules will make clear that the department has a responsibility not only to be thin d.o.d.'s networks -- to networks, but to defend the nation and our natural -- national interests in cyberspace. these new rules makes the department more agile and provides us with the ability to confront major threats quickly. to execute these responsibilities, we must have strong organizational structures in place. three years ago, the department took a major step forward by establishing the united states cyber command. under the leadership of a four start officer who also served as the director of the national security agency, cyber command has matured into what i believe it is a world-class organization. it has the
. the department of defense have an awesome -- an office call fsap and a handle all overseas military registration. it has been running in effectively four years. it was ineffective while i was on board and is still ineffective. in 2009, i testified in front of a senate armed services committee -- a congressional arms services committee, and i explained in a nutshell what i just told you about how difficult it was to be able to register and i offered ideas of what we need to do to modify that. we've got to get more opportunity for these people to get an office available for them to check into their new duty station that will help them to register to vote and inform them on whether state laws and deadlines are. you become oblivious why you're on active duty. next thing you know, it is election time and you needed to know about the six months earlier when you were in the field. host: there is a story from the "military *." times" guest: that is just astonishing. this law passed in 2009 and it required by federal law that every installation had a voting assistance office established. it was supposed
question. brac, the base realignment and closure process, could call for cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts. if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we can provide a good analysis as to what is going on. provide them with the toolsthe jobs are. we have a strong defense industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. industry in massachusetts. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them, i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their pr
thing is, these companies, these defense companies are suppose to send out notices to employees if there's a big event taking place within 60 days. yet the president tells them do not send those notices out. again, against the law but yet nobody calls him on it. why do we have them there in the first place? can the president say i will break the law and there's no ramification? host: robby mook. guest: look budgets should get passed and we got to figure out the sequestration. the problem is the tea party republicans who came to congress are drawing lines they won't cross and compromise. they refuse to put revenue on the table and they all signed a pledge for grover norquist. they will do anything for tax breaks for millionaires and oil companies and whole host of breaks for corporations. we will not solve this problem until tea party republicans can come to the table. guest: the democrats will only come to the table if they figure out someone to tax. the fact is, they have to budget. obama -- it's amazing to me that we have a president put a budget up here and got zero votes. we step
was going to cut taxes by 20%, increase spending on the defense budget by $2 trillion, increase medicare above ryan's idea above $716 billion. you can't take in less and spend more and balance it. that's why mitt romney, buy a $2 calculator and you'll see your plan doesn't work. >> but you're forgetting, you know, we never hear where conservatives want to spend. he wants to spend on defense. he gave a speech to the virginia military institute where he talked about if i'm president i'll buy 11 ships and including three submarines. that's a lot of money. >> the admirals don't even want the ships. just the military industrial complex wants to make the ships. >> do you want to take this one? >> you got the line. we're going to rebuild spending on the homeland. >> my bad, yeah. >> in all seriousness. >> because al qaeda's got the submarines threatening. >> governor, you're an elected official. you know when you run on a plan, you can't get -- there's a danger in getting so specific up front that you give away the house before you've even been elected into office. so mitt romney has laid down
, we hear time and time again there will have to be cuts across the board, that defense is one of the big areas, bowles-simpson targeted defense i think something as the third biggest issue that needs to be addressed. do you think that we can cut the defense budget or at least maintain, keep it steady, not increase that budget, and still keep the globe safe? >> well as you know we've already been implementing $460 billion in defense cuts. there are other savings that could be made in defense. cost overruns in these weapons acquisitions is a scandal, the least noticed enormous scandal there is in america today when you look at the costs of things like the f-35 and our latest aircraft carrier with these cost plus contracts, but there are savings, but it can't be done with a medax which is what sequestration does. the secretary of defense said it would devastate our national security. senators, republican and democrat, we have asked the president to sit down with we tried this super committee and that's how we got sequestration. everybody was so sure that they would come to an agr
process, could call for cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts. if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we to what is going on. the jobs are critical. we have a strong defense industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them, i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their proficiency is so much better than the active forces, and to think we will put that in jeopardy because a political agenda, i wi
clear that for the first time, the president was put on the defensive as far as his record is concerned. and that's because of this bubble he's been in for the last four years and he obviously couldn't defend it. finally, piers, i thought one of the seminal moments in that debate was near the end, when jim lehrer talked about the lack of bipartisanship, the lack of sitting down together and averting this fiscal cliff that most americans know we're headed towards, and mitt talked about being governor of massachusetts, reaching across the aisle, having to negotiate, et cetera. the president's responses, sometimes you have to say no to people. is that, you know, and the fact is first two years, as mitt pointed out, first two years of his presidency, they just rammed things through without a single republican vote. so i think those were -- that makes it probably one of the really more important debates in american history and perhaps i'm exaggerating because i'm so happy. >> i can't blame you. i can't blame any republicans because it's been a very bruising few weeks for the republicans and
was put on the defensive as far as his record is concerned. and that's because of this bubble he's been in for the last four years, and he obviously couldn't defend it. and finally, piers, i thought one of the solemn moments in that debate was when jim lehrer talked about avoiding this cliff we're walking towards, and romney talked about walking across this abyss. the president's response was sometimes you have to say no to people? and mitt said the first two years of his presidency, they just rammed things through without a single republican vote. that makes it probably one of the more important debates in american history, and perhaps i'm exaggerating because i'm so happy. >> i can't blame you. i can't blame any republicans because it's been a very bruising few weeks for the republicans and mitt romney, and then suddenly everything seems to have turned on its head. you're in a unique position because you've debated against both mitt romney and barack obama. interestingly, romney is believed from the latest polls to have won 67% to 25%. when you went head to head with obama in 2008, th
with deeds. our defense spending is deeply cut . we have no trade agenda to speak of and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership but of passivity. >> steve: here is pete is here. >> good morning. >> steve: mitt romney would like to be commander-in-chief. did he make a good case for himself . >> it was a fantastic speech and speech about leadership and carrying the mantel for freedom and still in a dark and difficult world and used libya for the larger struggle we face. he put it in the context of the larger foil we have faced. there are forces of radical islamism that seek our destruction and we stand up up to that. there will not be daylight for israel. and red line for iran. >> brian: he brought up the fact george marshall said the best thing to do to avoid war is to build up our defense and make us stronger. that's the best deterrent in war and proposed to build that rather than shrink the military. >> that is right. that is the difference between governor romney approach and the president. peace through strength. and the president said standing back is less provocat
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 86 (some duplicates have been removed)